# Absence of production of Original forged document not fatal to prosecution and prosecution has right to prove forgery through circumstantial evidence

- Link: https://section1.in/absence-of-production-of-original-forged-document-not-fatal-to-prosecution-and-prosecution-has-right-to-prove-forgery-through-circumstantial-evidence/
- Published: 2026-10-17T11:41:32+00:00
- Author: lawsection

Contents

 * [Doctrine of issue estoppel barring subsequent writ petition on the same contention that had been canvassed in earlier writ petition](https://section1.in/absence-of-production-of-original-forged-document-not-fatal-to-prosecution-and-prosecution-has-right-to-prove-forgery-through-circumstantial-evidence/#doctrine-of-issue-estoppel-barring-subsequent-writ-petition-on-the-same-contention-that-had-been-canvassed-in-earlier-writ-petition)
 * [Conclusion](https://section1.in/absence-of-production-of-original-forged-document-not-fatal-to-prosecution-and-prosecution-has-right-to-prove-forgery-through-circumstantial-evidence/#conclusion)

**Antonetto J D’Souza – Aldila Braganza and Others – Criminal Appeal No. 4092 of
2026 – 2026 INSC 1032 – September 22, 2026 – Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar,
JJ.**

[https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/54804/54804_2024_10_1501_54587_Judgement_22-Sep-2026.pdf](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/54804/54804_2024_10_1501_54587_Judgement_22-Sep-2026.pdf)

**Appellant and impugned order challenged**

The appellant-informant brought this criminal appeal challenging the final judgment
and order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court 
of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Writ Petition No. 346 of 2024. By the said impugned
order, the High Court set aside the concurrent orders passed by the Magistrate framing
charges and the Sessions Court dismissing [revision](https://section1.in/recall-702-crpc-only-revision-lies-against-order-issuing-against-nbw-and-not-crl-o-p-jurisdiction-editors-note-inside/),
thereby discharging the first respondent-accused for offences punishable under Sections
468, 471, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (paras 1, 6, 13)

**Factual matrix**

The appellant and the respondent are neighbours between whom disputes arose over
the construction of a structure pursuant to a 1971 municipal licence. The appellant
alleged that the structure was completely illegal and built [relying upon](https://section1.in/cheque-conviction-the-accused-has-only-relied-upon-plausible-theories-with-conjectures-and-surmises/)
an interpolated, forged copy of an approved plan drawn by an engineer. A complaint
was initially made before the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, followed by
a formal [police report](https://section1.in/understanding-the-police-report-investigation-and-magistrates-duties-in-criminal-cases/)
on 05.07.2012 at Calangute Police Station leading to the registration of FIR No.
152/2012 under Sections 468, 471, and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon 
completion of the [investigation](https://section1.in/despite-investigation-records-being-untraceable-and-yet-the-investigation-kept-pending-for-two-decades-is-nothing-but-delayed-and-denied-justice/),
a final report was submitted on 02.04.2016 alleging that the accused along with 
her late father-in-law had forged the plan and produced it as genuine. The [accused sought discharge on the ground](https://section1.in/ratio-decidendi-failing-to-inform-the-accused-of-the-grounds-of-arrest-denying-the-opportunity-to-defend-through-counsel-and-failing-to-provide-information-about-the-proposed-remand-is-unconstituti/)
that the investigating agency failed to seize and recover the original plan, rendering
the chargesheet non-maintainable. (paras 2, 3, 4)

**Other courts verdicts**

The Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the plea of the accused on 21.12.2017
finding sufficient prima facie material to frame charges, and the Additional Sessions
Judge subsequently affirmed this view by dismissing Criminal Revision Application
No. 11 of 2018 on 28.12.2021. The High [Court earlier declined to quash the proceedings in Criminal](https://section1.in/court-cannot-return-final-report/)
Writ Petition No. 80 of 2023 on 31.10.2023, but in a subsequent [writ petition](https://section1.in/writ-miscellaneous-applications-not-entertained-after-disposal-of-a-main-writ-petition/)(
Criminal Writ Petition No. 346 of 2024), a Single Judge [set aside](https://section1.in/habeas-corpus-unexplained-delay-in-disposing-the-representation-made-by-the-detenu-is-sufficient-to-set-aside-the-order-of-detention/)
the charges on 28.08.2024 and discharged the accused solely because the original
plan was not annexed to the chargesheet. (paras 4, 5, 6, 11)

**Core legal [arguments](https://section1.in/oral-hearing-is-non-negotiable-non-cooperation-by-defence-counsel-requires-amicus-appointment-not-ex-parte-verdict/)
of appellant vs respondent**

Counsel for the appellant argued that the High [Court exceeded its jurisdiction](https://section1.in/in-cross-case-or-case-in-counter-the-i-o-has-to-file-both-the-final-reports-before-the-jurisdictional-magistrate/)
under Section 482 of the CrPC by conducting a mini-trial and sifting through evidence
at the stage of framing charge, especially when a Division Bench of the same High
Court had previously dismissed an identical challenge which had attained finality.
In response, the accused appearing in-person contended that without recovering and
producing the original plan alleged to have been forged, the basic ingredients of
forgery could never be sustained, making the prolonged fourteen-year prosecution
a sheer abuse of process of law that fully justified the exercise of inherent powers
for discharge. (paras 7, 8)

**Ratio Decidendi**

Absence of the [original document](https://section1.in/no-original-documents-no-registration-of-deed/)
alleged to have been forged does not, by itself, sound the death knell of the prosecution
at the threshold stage of framing of charge, as the investigating agency is neither
precluded from proving forgery through circumstantial evidence nor barred from placing
additional documents during trial under Section 173(8) CrPC. Furthermore, where 
a competent [court has already considered and rejected](https://section1.in/abu-salem-case-supreme-court-rejects-premature-release-plea-2026-insc-982/)
a specific ground of challenge against the framing of charge in an earlier writ 
proceeding between the same parties, the doctrine of issue estoppel precludes the
accused from reagitating the self-same ground through successive writ petitions 
before the same High Court. At the stage of Section 227 and 228 CrPC, the court 
cannot conduct a roving [inquiry or separate](https://section1.in/if-the-accused-resides-outside-the-jurisdiction-there-need-not-be-a-separate-inquiry-or-investigation-under-section-202-crpc-for-complaints-filed-by-public-servants/)
grain from the chaff; grave suspicion founded on the chargesheet materials is sufficient
to proceed with trial. (paras 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20)

**[Directions issued](https://section1.in/reason-is-necessary-while-recording-direction-to-pay-the-interim-compensation-u-s143a1-n-i-act/)**

The [Supreme Court](https://section1.in/supreme-court-on-corporate-criminal-liability-the-new-three-stage-test-for-attributing-mens-rea-to-a-company/)
set aside the impugned discharge judgment of the High Court and restored Criminal
Case No. 90/S/2016/F before the Judicial Magistrate First Class with a [direction to proceed with the trial](https://section1.in/denovo-trial-unusual-recording-of-confession-statements-based-on-judicial-directions-and-the-doubt-of-subsequent-insertion-of-statutory-warning-in-the-confession-creates-serious-doubts/)
in accordance with law. Clarifying that all contentions on merits remain open without
being prejudiced by any prima facie observations, the [Court directed](https://section1.in/suo-moto-guidelines-common-practice-and-procedure-in-criminal-trials-all-over-india/)
the trial proceedings to be expedited since the complaint originated in the year
2012. (para 21)

**Important Paragraphs**

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the first respondent in-
person as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. We have
also perused the material on [record that was placed before the trial](https://section1.in/reversal-of-acquittal-appellate-court-cannot-reverse-the-acquittal-on-fresh-appreciation-of-evidence-and-without-recording-any-illegality-error-of-law-or-of-fact-in-the-trial-court-judgment/)
Court as well as before the High Court. Having given thoughtful consideration to
the entire matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in
quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate framing charge and the order
passed by the Sessions Court upholding that order.

##### **Doctrine of issue estoppel barring subsequent writ petition on the same contention that had been canvassed in earlier writ petition**

15. Yet another reason for this Court to interfere is on account of the bar to re-
consider an [issue](https://section1.in/closure-report-pmla-closure-report-filed-in-predicate-offence-deserves-to-be-challenged-to-continue-proceedings-under-pmla-hence-though-the-ed-is-neither-aggrieved-person-nor-victim-it-may-appr/)
that was decided earlier in the same proceedings on the principle of ‘issue estoppel.
The Division Bench in the earlier round having considered the ground of absence 
of the original plan being submitted along with the chargesheet and thereafter having
declined to set aside the [order framing charge](https://section1.in/section-216-crpc-does-not-give-any-right-to-the-accused-to-file-a-fresh-application-seeking-his-discharge-after-the-charge-is-framed-and-also-no-revision-lie-inasmuch-as-it-is-an-interlocutory-order/),
it was not open for the accused in a subsequent writ petition to again canvass the
very same contention that had been canvassed in the earlier writ petition. The principle
of ‘issue estoppel’ would apply as a ground of challenge raised earlier but was 
unsuccessful was sought to be re-agitated before the same [Court](https://section1.in/honble-madras-high-court-issued-guidelines-to-family-courts-to-cirumvent-the-procedural-wrangles-that-are-being-faced-by-the-parties-before-the-family-court/)
by the same party.

16. Notwithstanding this position, even on merits of the challenge, we find that
the entire premise on which the accused seeks discharge, namely absence of the original
plan on the basis of which the charge of forgery was framed does not stand on firm
ground. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the decision in _Rama 
Shanker Lal and others Vs. The State of U.P._ The appellants were prosecuted for
the offence under Sections 120-B, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. It was alleged 
that some insertions/changes were made in a sale deed that was presented for registration.
The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants after holding that
there was no proof of forgery of the original sale deed, which was not produced 
before the Court. The High Court, however, held that the contents of the certified
copy of the sale deed were different from what was decided to be sold and what was
actually incorporated in the sale deed. The appellants were, thus, convicted for
the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code. Before this Court,
it was urged that there was no evidence of forgery of the original sale deed as 
it was not available on record. In that context, it was observed as under:

> “7. The document said to have been forged as already pointed out has not been 
> produced in the case. According to the prosecution that document was taken back
> by Rama Shankar Lal; whereas according to the accused it was Vishnu Pad Mathur(
> P.^()W.1) who had received back the original document from the office of the Sub-
> Registrar. Both sides desired this Court to draw an adverse inference against 
> the opposite party for the non-production of the original sale deed. On the state
> of evidence o^()n this point we are disinclined to express any definite opinion
> on the question as to who had received back the sale deed ^()from the office of
> the Sub-Registrar though it seems likely that Rama Shankar Lal had taken back 
> the sale deed because t^()he sale deed constituted proof of the title of the vendee.
> In the circumstances we refrain from raising any presumption from the ^()non-production
> of the sale deed. However, the fact remains that we have not had the benefit of
> looking at the document^() alleged to have been forged, a circumstance which is
> material and which must to a large extent go against the prosecution^(). We do
> not mean to say that in the absence of the document alleged to be forged the Court
> can in no case hold^() the offence of forgery to be established, but to claim 
> such a finding in the absence of the document said to be forg^()ed, the evidence
> must in our view exclude all possibility of a reasonable doubt. This is in accord
> with the general principle of ^()our jurisprudence.”^()

It was, thus, held that the appellants were aware that the documents they used did
not represent the original sale deed. Their conviction under Section 471 of the 
Penal Code was upheld.

**Absence of Original Forged Document before the court not fatal to Prosecution 
case**

17. From the aforesaid decision of the three Judge Bench, **it can be seen that 
the original sale deed alleged to have been forged was not produced before the Court.
Despite such position, this [Court held that absence](https://section1.in/return-of-property-in-ndps-act-honble-supreme-court-after-explain-four-scenarios-held-that-in-the-absence-of-specific-bar-under-the-ndps-court-can-invoke-general-power-under-sections-451-and/)
of the original sale deed, by itself, could not be the basis to record a finding
that in no case, the offence of forgery could not be established. It observed “We
do not mean to say that in the absence of the document alleged to be forged the 
Court can in no case hold the offence of forgery to be established, but to claim
such a finding in the absence of the document said to be forged, the evidence must
in our view exclude all possibility of a reasonable doubt. This is in accord with
the general principle of our jurisprudence.” Thus, absence of production of the 
original document by itself was not found [fatal for the prosecution case](https://section1.in/murder-case-acquittal-the-witnesses-are-totally-unbelievable-as-such-they-informed-as-if-accused-have-climbed-into-the-chaubara-which-has-no-gate-through-a-ladder-and-caused-fatal-injuries-to-the-de/).
In other words, on the basis of other evidence on record, the prosecution could 
attempt to prove the offence of forgery, albeit [beyond reasonable doubt](https://section1.in/murder-case-acquittal-prosecution-failed-to-establish-beyond-reasonable-doubt-that-the-recovery-of-dead-body-and-failure-to-do-test-identification-parade-of-articles/).
This would naturally depend on the facts of each case**.

**Thus, in view of the decision in Rama Shanker Lal (supra), absence of the original
document that is alleged to be forged, by itself, cannot sound the death knell of
the prosecution case. It is only after evaluating the entire prosecution material
that a finding would be required to be recorded as to whether the charge of forgery
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That the prosecution could result in [acquittal](https://section1.in/acquittal-gunshot-witnesses-might-have-already-planned-to-frame-the-accused-since-they-know-the-accused-owned-licensed-weapon/)
at the conclusion of the trial is a different matter altogether**.

**Right of Prosecution to Prove Forgery via [Circumstantial Evidence](https://section1.in/rape-case-santosh-gurung-vs-state-of-sikkim-s-c-quashes-life-sentence-based-on-broken-circumstantial-evidence/)
at Trial**

19. It is, thus, clear that absence of the original [document relied upon by the prosecution](https://section1.in/defence-can-rely-on-the-unmarked-document-filed-by-the-prosecution/)
to bring home the charge of forgery would be a matter to be considered at the trial
and its absence by itself cannot be made the basis for quashing the entire prosecution.**
In other words, the prosecution can attempt to bring home the charge on the basis
of [circumstantial evidence](https://section1.in/appreciation-of-evidence-circumstantial-evidence-recovery-u-s-27-iea/).**
However, the entire proceedings would not be liable to be quashed without affording
an opportunity to the prosecution to attempt to prove the charge at the trial as
seen in the facts of the [present case](https://section1.in/how-sanctioning-authority-shall-examine-the-case-presented/).

**Threshold and Scope of Judicial Scrutiny at the [Stage of Framing Charges](https://section1.in/section-91-cr-p-c-accused-has-no-right-to-summon-call-at-the-stage-of-charge-framing/)**

20. Yet another reason that is apparent from the record is the detailed analysis
undertaken by the learned Single Judge while exercising jurisdiction in a challenge
to an [order passed under Section 227 of the Code](https://section1.in/accused-were-permitted-to-leave-the-court-without-any-formal-order-of-release-or-even-without-taking-a-bond-under-section-88-of-the-code/).
At that stage, it would not be permissible to sift through the entire evidence forming
part of the chargesheet with a view to find whether such evidence could result in
conviction of the accused. It would be sufficient if a grave suspicion is raised
against the accused on the basis of such material so as to sustain a trial. In this
regard, we may refer to the broad parameters to be borne in mind while exercising
such jurisdiction. In **K.H. Kamaladini vs. State**, this Court observed as under:

> ‘As far as the scope of hearing at the time of framing of the charge is concerned,
> the law is well settled. Firstly, at this stage, the Court can examine only the
> documents forming part of the [charge sheet](https://section1.in/section-420-ipc-the-contention-that-since-charge-sheet-has-been-filed-the-present-appeal-is-to-be-dismissed-was-rejected/),
> and no other material can be considered. Secondly, after considering the material
> on record, the Court has to [decide whether](https://section1.in/section-319-cr-p-c-trial-court-can-decide-whether-an-application-under-section-319-cr-p-c-should-be-decided-with-or-without-waiting-for-cross-examination/)
> or not there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against 
> the appellant. Thirdly, at this stage, the Court cannot sift the evidence forming
> a part of the chargesheet with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. 
> Fourthly, if the Court is of the view that the [evidence without cross-examination or rebuttal shows that the accused](https://section1.in/case-diary-section-1723-cr-p-c-the-accused-has-a-right-to-cross-examine-police-officer-as-per-section-145-evidence-act-whenever-the-police-officer-uses-it-to-refresh-his-memory/)
> has not committed any offence, then an order of discharge must be passed. Lastly,
> if the evidence adduced before the Court creates a grave suspicion against the
> accused, the Court will not discharge the accused.’

##### **Conclusion**

21. Thus, taking an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the learned
Single Judge was not justified in exercising jurisdiction and re-appreciating the
entire material on record despite the fact that in the earlier round of the same
litigation at the behest of the accused, the Division Bench on consideration of 
the very same submissions had declined to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Magistrate framing charge. The accused has again sought to raise a challenge
to the order framing charge despite being unsuccessful earlier. For the aforesaid
reasons, the judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.346 of 2024 is set aside. The proceedings
in Criminal Case No.90/S/2016/F before the learned Magistrate are restored. The 
learned Magistrate shall now proceed with the trial in accordance with law. It is
clarified that all contentions of the parties including the accused are kept open
for being raised at the trial. Any observations made herein shall not cause prejudice
to either of the parties. Since the complaint is of the year 2012, the proceedings
before the learned Magistrate are expedited. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in aforesaid
terms. The pending Interlocutory Applications are disposed of.

**Resource**

**Judgments Cited and Used in the Decision**

 * _Piara Singh v. State of Punjab_, 1969 INSC 3: Settled that issue estoppel precludes
   the reception of evidence to disturb a finding of fact directly decided between
   the same parties in prior proceedings.
 * _King v. Wilkes_, (1948) 77 C.L.R. 511: Established that ordinary rules of issue
   estoppel prevent relitigation of an issue determined in favor of an accused in
   prior proceedings.
 * _Marz v. The Queen_, [1956] 96 C.L.R. 62: Reaffirmed that once an issue has been
   directly raised and found between the parties, subsequent legally inconsistent
   allegations cannot be entertained.
 * _Brown v. Robinson_, [1960] S.R. (N.S.W.) 297: Ruled that issue estoppel requires
   an identical issue to have been distinctly raised and determined in former proceedings.
 * _Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab_, AIR 1956 SC 415: Endorsed the binding principle
   of issue estoppel in [criminal jurisprudence](https://section1.in/suicide-no-dowry-demand-a-moral-conviction-regarding-the-guilt-of-an-individual-has-no-place-in-criminal-jurisprudence/)
   in India.
 * _Manipur Administration v. Thokchom Bira Singh_, 1964 INSC 67: Affirmed the application
   and limitations of the doctrine of issue estoppel in criminal trials.
 * _Rama Shanker Lal and others v. The State of U.P._, (1971) 3 SCC 905: Held that
   non-production of the original forged document is not necessarily fatal to [proving the charge of forgery beyond reasonable doubt](https://section1.in/prosecution-not-proved-the-murder-case-beyond-reasonable-doubt/).
 * _Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai and Another_, 2002 INSC 178: Held
   that Section 173(5) is directory and does not preclude the prosecution from submitting
   additional documents post-chargesheet.
 * _Narayan Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh_, [1958] SCR 283: Interpreted the
   word ‘shall’ in statutory provisions for forwarding [police investigation](https://section1.in/no-private-funding-in-police-investigation/)
   papers as directory rather than mandatory.
 * _K.H. Kamaladini v. State_, 2025 INSC 745: Summarized the five core [principles governing](https://section1.in/principles-governing-for-granting-bail/)
   the discharge stage and held that a grave suspicion against the accused warrants
   framing of charge.
 * _Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh_, 2024 INSC 522: Held that 
   charge framing requires a prima facie ground emerging from records, not mere 
   suppositions or conjectures.

**Acts and Sections Involved**

 * **Indian Penal Code, 1860:**
    - Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
 *  - Section 120-B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy
 *  - Section 420: [Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property](https://section1.in/supreme-court-quashes-fir-in-property-dispute-emphasizes-civil-in-nature-and-held-it-is-impossible-to-appreciate-how-appellant-deceived-the-respondent/)
 *  - Section 468: Forgery for purpose of cheating
 *  - Section 471: Using as genuine a forged document or [electronic record](https://section1.in/electronic-records-objection-though-objection-regarding-absence-of-certificate-under-section-65b-iea-not-raised-while-marking-but-question-put-to-the-witness-is-treated-as-objection/)
 * **[Code of Criminal Procedure](https://section1.in/bail-ability-of-section-3513-of-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023-do-colonial-era-notifications-survive-the-new-criminal-procedure-code/),
   1973:**
    - Section 173: [Report of police officer on completion of investigation](https://section1.in/understanding-the-police-report-investigation-and-magistrates-duties-in-criminal-cases/)
      Section 207A: (Pre-1973 procedure referenced via precedent)Section 227: DischargeSection
      228: Framing of chargeSection 397: Calling for records to exercise powers 
      of revisionSection 403: (Pre-1973 CrPC / [double jeopardy](https://section1.in/pmla-pc-act-prosecuting-the-person-accused-of-an-offence-under-section-131e-of-the-pc-act-as-well-as-for-an-offence-under-section-3-of-pmla-would-not-amount-to-double-jeopardy/)
      reference in citations)Section 482: Saving of inherent [powers of High Court](https://section1.in/cr-p-c-1973-notes-no-6-general-introduction-to-inquiries-and-trials-part-4-criminal-courts-powers-administration/)

### Further Study

 No Related Posts Found.